Down With Power Audiobook!


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE

Number 824, May 31, 2015

Neale Osborn 1964-2015

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Final Report on Constitutional Carry in Texas

The one we lost: HB 3884 ending the ban on carrying certain knives in public almost passed. However there was a fight among its sponsors and the bill was removed from the Senate. As per Knife Rights (kniferights.org):

Unfortunately, Knife Rights' Comprehensive Knife Ban Repeal bill, HB 3884, that would have repealed the remaining "illegal knives" in Texas statute failed to be voted on by deadline in the Senate. HB 3884 was passed by the House unanimously and passed out of Chairman Whitmire's Senate Criminal Justice committee unanimously, and placed on the Local and Uncontested Calendar. Then Sen. Whitmire, who sponsored HB 3884 for us in the Senate, quietly and inexplicably yanked the bill from the Local and Uncontested Calendar without notice in an apparent last-minute political spat with our primary bill sponsor having nothing to do with our bill. We are extremely disappointed by Chairman Whitmire's disregard for his constituents in Texas who will continue to deal with Texas' irrational knife restrictions. We will be back again to get these archaic restrictions repealed in the next session (2 years), in the meantime Texas will remain far less free than their outsized reputation suggests.—See more at: kniferights.org

The one we split: HB910 permitting licensed open carry has passed, minus the Dutton Huffines Amendment that turned it into "stealth constitutional carry." This occurred because certain police organizations opposed it. If you are a Texan do not support police organizations with money unless they publicly support for Constitutional Carry. Also, make support for Constitutional Carry a necessary condition to get your political support (money, time campaigning for them, and of course your vote.). We have a year and a half to elect a Legislature that supports CC.

Finally, the one we won clear: HB 905 knife preemption. Any knife that is legal in Houston is legal in San Antonio.

I was going to buy a cane sword if HB 3884 passed. It should have passed, getting put on the Local and Uncontested calendar usually means done deal. Given limited funding I will have to concentrate on other cutlery, most likely a Benchmade Bedlam (automatic or not), and also have a little more to spend on firearm.

When life gives you lemons get a bottle of Cuervo and a salt shaker.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

[ In my opinion, police should be arrested for trying to influence legislation—Editor ]


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author


Re: My last letter

What I meant is that, here-and-now, it's generally a matter of very little risk to denounce Mohammed. It's like the old joke about how the American tells the Soviet "I can get out on the street and yell 'The President of the US is a fink!' all I want!" and the Soviet says "Big deal! I can yell 'The President of the US is a fink' in public, too!"

If I get up on my hind legs and, say, denounce world hunger or serial killers, while I have exercised free speech, I have not exactly shown great courage, have I?

Try saying something that's really unpopular with the media and/or your neighbors, and then see how far your free speech really goes. Freedom of speech is for _all_ points of view, not just ones that Our Masters in the government and media smile upon.

Eric Oppen
ravenclaweric@gmail.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author


Re: "Idiot "Academic" Advocates Victim Disarmament", by L. Neil Smith

This is the article on the Bandidos MC in Wikipedia.

Please to particularly check out their activity outside of US. In what known universe would stricter gun laws interfered with the brawl they and the Cossacks started in Waco that got so much attention, given the gang's activities in countries with gun laws that would warm the cockles of the hearts of hoplophobes?

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author


An Unusually Good Deal

As you may be aware,I collect knives, especially Bowie knives (and kukhris). I stumbled across this in one of those little side-ads that pop up, and I'm so happy with the way it turned out, that I wanted to let other people know. The knife James Bowie had at the Battle of the Sandbar was described later as resembling a large kitchen knife.This is about the right size and weight. You'll find the full specs in the ad. I't's rather light, and very, very plain, just the way I like things.

The price is about $25.00, cheap enough to use for rough work I'm not making anything on this, just thought you'd like to know about it.

shoppingwarehouse.net

L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author


Blacklisted for truth saying

I have been silenced on Galt's Gulch Online because Scott Desapio (Atlas Shrugged trilogy producer and moderator) decided my attacks on idiots who refuse to see Tomorrowland because the cast (not a writer, producer, or director) includes a liberal actor whose off-screen opinions they don't like were ad hominem. That Tomorrowland is as close to Ayn Rand's sensibilities as anything she ever wrote for the screen is apparently less important than a Fox News led blackballing of any movie made by anyone not a Republican apparatchik. I was "flagged" on Galt's Gulch Online by a woman who writes Christian romance novels and that triggered Scott Desapio hiding my messages.

How is this banning of anything insufficiently guilty/apologetic any different from campus Marxists whose sensitivities to damn near anything has become the plague of academic life, banning any speech which offends any of their plethora of idiosyncratic ideological allergies?

Harmon Kaslow and Scott Desapio, I can't imagine what words Ayn Rand would have for banning my on-topic arguments in favor of someone whose pusillanimous sensibilities flags any opinion they're too weak-minded to have intelligent answer for, but based on reading her introduction to For The New Intellectual she would definitely include some phrases you'd hide as ad hominem. Hell, Francisco's money speech wouldn't pass your hide buttom.

J. Neil Schulman
jneil@jesulu.com
Winner of the Prometheus Award, the James Madison Award, The Chauntecleer Award, the Sovereign Award, the Freedom Book Club Award

To which Brad Linaweaver remarked:

Dear All,

Here is a simple exercise in logic.

If Galt's Gulch can allow the author of Christian romance novels to participate, then Galt's Gulch can allow J. Neil Schulman to praise a movie about the wonders of science and technology.

Brad Linaweaver
blinaweaver@yahoo.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box(s) (it's a button!) to pay the author(s)


Thought those readers who haven't given up on politics and voting altogether might like the idea of sending a few of these around:

Get outta hell free!
http://www.getoutofhellfree.com/void/

Just about what the link says. A "Get Out of Hell Free" card that is voided—and specifically voided for politicians who have ""sinned" against our country."

Me? I rather like H.L. Mencken's description of an election of "an advanced auction of stolen goods" (I hope I have the source correct without troubling to look it up).

I'm doubtful that there is much hope, but somewhat inclined to think that if you care, it may be more effective to take the trouble to go to the polls and /not/ vote for any rascals. While we probably couldn't manage it, how do you think people would take a vote of 30% for the "winning" president; 28% for the runner up; but "no vote" came in first at 35%? Seems that might put the fear of god into a few politicians when the "I will not comply" rallies come round.

Oh, and one way to solve the issue of machines changing votes? Add to the ballot a set of circles to fill with a unique number. At the polls have some good hardware random number generators, and each voter can go up to one, get a random number, and fill in the appropriate circles. This number is read with the ballot, and a table is publicly posted with the votes of every ballot, keyed to the random number. When the machine scans the ballot a copy is (optionally) made for the voter, who can then look up the table and verify that his/her vote was counted correctly. Since the poll officials never have the random number, the ballot remains secret, but verifiable.

Tor Chantara
Marqueteur@FineArtMarquetry.com
http://www.fineartmarquetry.com/
808-828-1107
GPG Key: 2BE1 426E 34EA D253 D583 9DE4 B866 0375 134B 48FB
Be wary of unsigned emails
Stop spying: http://www.resetthenet.org/


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author


This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

Big Head Press